Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 / QGSI 2.0; site qubix.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!vecpyr!amd!pesnta!pyramid!decwrl!sun!saber!qubix!jeff
From: jeff@qubix.UUCP (Jeff Bulf)
Newsgroups: net.graphics
Subject: Re: XOR cursors
Message-ID: <1653@qubix.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 18-Nov-85 15:57:42 EST
Article-I.D.: qubix.1653
Posted: Mon Nov 18 15:57:42 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 23-Nov-85 03:45:04 EST
References: <1858@saber.UUCP> <959@turtlevax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, San Jose, CA
Lines: 22

> Ken Turkowski @ CIMLINC (formerly CADLINC), Menlo Park, CA

>            It seems to me that there is something written somewhere
> about the unique property of the exclusive-OR function that if it is
> applied twice with the same source and destination, then the
> destination is the same as the original.

    Point well taken, Ken.
    I learned this in my first encounter with boolean algebra at Berkeley
in 1967. I gathered that the technique went back as far as Boole. (1800's?)

>                                                Would this same patent,
> for example, cover the use of exclusive-or for scrambling speech
> signals?  The technology is the same, it is just applied to a different
> problem.

    Although I agree strongly with Ken here, I am stumped on the next question.
How do we get legal relief from this apparent scam? Does anybody have both
the legal and technical background to formulate a case?
-- 
	Dr Memory
	...{amd,ihnp4}!qubix!jeff